We seem to have a view that courts, including the Supreme Court, have some delegated power to decide the Constitutionality of an action.

That's false, and in fact the Federal Court system itself admits they made it up.

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Note clearly what they admit: They invented that as a "doctrine" in 1803; no component of the Constitution actually granted such a power.

Article VI establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land.  Nowhere is there an exception or "wordsmithing" allowed -- that is, no matter what some court might say, the Constitution, being Supreme, is declarative.

For instance the entire claimed "authority" to search communications of Americans without a warrant under FISA is per-se unconstitutional because the 4th Amendment contains no exceptions -- not for terrorism or any other reason, including even an active war.

It does not matter what Congress passes or the Supremes say: That law is void, period.

Now of course they will be happy to try to throw you in prison for it, but the fact remains that its void.

We, the people, are the ones charged with enforcement because per the Constitution any power not delegated to the Federal Government is held by the States or the People, depending on whether same would be constructed against one or the other.

The 14th Amendment incorporated the entirety of the Constitution against the States, which until that time had no such requirement; that is, a State could, until that time, under its own Constitution search without a warrant.  That went away in 1869.

Indeed of the Constitution's protections only habeas corpus can be suspended (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2) -- there is no other right that is held by the people that can abrogated by a mere act of Congress.

Yet here we are.

We have both "laws" that are wildly in violation of the Constitution (virtually all gun constraints other than those on interstate commerce, which is a delegated federal power), FISA and similar as it applies to "general warrants" or even warrantless searches which violate the 4th Amendment and blatant and outrageous refusal to execute existing laws whenever it suits the administration or Department of Justice's whims (e.g. 8 USC 1324 on illegal immigrants, 15 USC Ch 1 against virtually every medical and pharmaceutical provider in the nation and more) never mind the just-heard case of Sarbox being "uniquely" applied intentionally out-of-scope (on which I have a separate article.)

None of that is Constitutional and no decision of any court, including the Supremes, can make it so.  Indeed the 14th Amendment makes clear that unequal prosecution, which many defend as a "right of discretion" does not exist and that such an agency and all their employees are in fact committing felonies in each and every case which they willingly refuse to prosecute.

The last thirty or so years have shown conclusively that the Supremes are part of that problem -- but its not really their fault because they never had the power in the first place when it came to whether something is within the black letters of the page in the Constitution -- we did and still do.

The question becomes this: Are we willing to enforce it, or are we going to sit back and let our nation be overrun by scams and invaders as we have for the last three decades to the point that our entire economy and political system collapses?